Eric Mangini Thread

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Joecool:
That's the thing, the Pats defense hasn't been the same since they lost the presence of Harrison and Brueschi. They have been standing on the shoulders of their offense for years now.

Many of us said that the offense would have to step up this year because it would be a down year for the defense after losing so many key stars. Now that it has happened some are acting like it's a huge surprise! Oh no...Mangini should be fired! Why? Because his rookie CB gets beaten? Because his team doesn't have all the complicated schemes down yet? I'm not among those who feel this way...still waiting for the team to have a chance to prove themselves in reasonable time.

My issue is that I don't like the scheme that I am seeing. Some are stating it's complex and will take time to learn. I don't see it as far as the coverages, which is the main area being exposed. It looks elementary and easy to figure out as multiple veteran QBs have done. I don't see anything complex about Tampa2, Cover3, Fire Zone blitz, and Cover 2 Man. The term 'complex' can have more than one meaning. It can mean what they do is complex and tough to teach - this is Fangio. Or it can mean that there's just a large playbook and there's a lot to remember, which is what I think of Mangini's defense. Defensive players that have to think so much can't react as quickly.

Fangio came with different coverages, but they were almost always pattern matching. This allowed the players to be comfortable knowing that what they did in the previous play, is what they'll be doing again on the next play, just from a various look. Mangini is all over the place. Blitz LBs, blitz DBs, rush 3, man, zone, a variety of different fronts, and a bunch of post snap rotations, all designed to confuse the offense, but also confuses the defense. It's complicated in terms of sheer volume of what they have to know. A lame analogy is that Fangio is like learning Calculus - a very advanced and difficult branch of math. Whereas Mangini is like learning basic arithmetic, basic physics, basic chemistry, common world history, etc.

I get the loss in talent, but the defense is playing at a very poor level. Not just middle of the road, but one of the worst in the league. There are some reasons in place for the bad showings such as good opposing QBs and young starters at key positions. Maybe I overestimated the talent. I won't rule that out.

This is so spot on as to how I feel right now I damn near felt like I wrote it.

Thanks thl408...

PS: You're more objective than me so I'll just say it: It's NOT the talent.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Joecool:
That's the thing, the Pats defense hasn't been the same since they lost the presence of Harrison and Brueschi. They have been standing on the shoulders of their offense for years now.

Many of us said that the offense would have to step up this year because it would be a down year for the defense after losing so many key stars. Now that it has happened some are acting like it's a huge surprise! Oh no...Mangini should be fired! Why? Because his rookie CB gets beaten? Because his team doesn't have all the complicated schemes down yet? I'm not among those who feel this way...still waiting for the team to have a chance to prove themselves in reasonable time.

My issue is that I don't like the scheme that I am seeing. Some are stating it's complex and will take time to learn. I don't see it as far as the coverages, which is the main area being exposed. It looks elementary and easy to figure out as multiple veteran QBs have done. I don't see anything complex about Tampa2, Cover3, Fire Zone blitz, and Cover 2 Man. The term 'complex' can have more than one meaning. It can mean what they do is complex and tough to teach - this is Fangio. Or it can mean that there's just a large playbook and there's a lot to remember, which is what I think of Mangini's defense. Defensive players that have to think so much can't react as quickly.

Fangio came with different coverages, but they were almost always pattern matching. This allowed the players to be comfortable knowing that what they did in the previous play, is what they'll be doing again on the next play, just from a various look. Mangini is all over the place. Blitz LBs, blitz DBs, rush 3, man, zone, a variety of different fronts, and a bunch of post snap rotations, all designed to confuse the offense, but also confuses the defense. It's complicated in terms of sheer volume of what they have to know. A lame analogy is that Fangio is like learning Calculus - a very advanced and difficult branch of math. Whereas Mangini is like learning basic arithmetic, basic physics, basic chemistry, common world history, etc.

I get the loss in talent, but the defense is playing at a very poor level. Not just middle of the road, but one of the worst in the league. There are some reasons in place for the bad showings such as good opposing QBs and young starters at key positions. Maybe I overestimated the talent. I won't rule that out.

This is so spot on as to how I feel right now I damn near felt like I wrote it.

Thanks thl408...

PS: You're more objective than me so I'll just say it: It's NOT the talent.

It's a boom or bust defense. Every third game or so or vs a lower level QB, we will probably look super dominant. Then we will have a couple games of sheer crap.

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Why did Tomsula and Mangini feel the need to change the defensive scheme and philosophy so greatly, the defensive scheme and philosophy they had worked.

I don't get the appeal of Mangini, he didn't get results as the TE coach and his one year as DC in New England was BY FAR their worst defensive year in all the years Belichick has been there.

Defensive coaches have their own styles, just like offensive coaches, they are going to run what they know, and feel comfortable with. Mangini is trying to turn us into the Patriots.

The Patriots had their worst defensive year of the millennium the one year Mangini was their DC.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by thl408:
My issue is that I don't like the scheme that I am seeing. Some are stating it's complex and will take time to learn. I don't see it as far as the coverages, which is the main area being exposed. It looks elementary and easy to figure out as multiple veteran QBs have done. I don't see anything complex about Tampa2, Cover3, Fire Zone blitz, and Cover 2 Man. The term 'complex' can have more than one meaning. It can mean what they do is complex and tough to teach - this is Fangio. Or it can mean that there's just a large playbook and there's a lot to remember, which is what I think of Mangini's defense. Defensive players that have to think so much can't react as quickly.

Fangio came with different coverages, but they were almost always pattern matching. This allowed the players to be comfortable knowing that what they did in the previous play, is what they'll be doing again on the next play, just from a various look. Mangini is all over the place. Blitz LBs, blitz DBs, rush 3, man, zone, a variety of different fronts, and a bunch of post snap rotations, all designed to confuse the offense, but also confuses the defense. It's complicated in terms of sheer volume of what they have to know. A lame analogy is that Fangio is like learning Calculus - a very advanced and difficult branch of math. Whereas Mangini is like learning basic arithmetic, basic physics, basic chemistry, common world history, etc.

I get the loss in talent, but the defense is playing at a very poor level. Not just middle of the road, but one of the worst in the league. There are some reasons in place for the bad showings such as good opposing QBs and young starters at key positions. Maybe I overestimated the talent. I won't rule that out.

I believe that's part of his plan...multiple schemes that will take tiime to iron out, but when they do the defense will be able to morph whichever way he wants. I don't believe he thought the pass rush would be so slow developing, but he must have looked at the schedule and noticed the QBs the defense would face early in the year. So, go with a simple single plan and be one dimensional, or use many plans and work toward solvency?

They may be playing at a poor level but the speed of the defense has increased week by week. Guys are less hesitant. My hope is that they are nearing the point of playing more instinctively in all the schemes.

Good point about the bolded. He may have designed this defense with the premise that he'd have two good pass rushers coming off the edge which would allow for zone coverage to be more effective. When Aldon went Aldon, there was no time to overhaul what they've been implementing since camp. At this point, it might be too late to change much. Just hope the players adapt and execute what he wants.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by thl408:
My issue is that I don't like the scheme that I am seeing. Some are stating it's complex and will take time to learn. I don't see it as far as the coverages, which is the main area being exposed. It looks elementary and easy to figure out as multiple veteran QBs have done. I don't see anything complex about Tampa2, Cover3, Fire Zone blitz, and Cover 2 Man. The term 'complex' can have more than one meaning. It can mean what they do is complex and tough to teach - this is Fangio. Or it can mean that there's just a large playbook and there's a lot to remember, which is what I think of Mangini's defense. Defensive players that have to think so much can't react as quickly.

Fangio came with different coverages, but they were almost always pattern matching. This allowed the players to be comfortable knowing that what they did in the previous play, is what they'll be doing again on the next play, just from a various look. Mangini is all over the place. Blitz LBs, blitz DBs, rush 3, man, zone, a variety of different fronts, and a bunch of post snap rotations, all designed to confuse the offense, but also confuses the defense. It's complicated in terms of sheer volume of what they have to know. A lame analogy is that Fangio is like learning Calculus - a very advanced and difficult branch of math. Whereas Mangini is like learning basic arithmetic, basic physics, basic chemistry, common world history, etc.

I get the loss in talent, but the defense is playing at a very poor level. Not just middle of the road, but one of the worst in the league. There are some reasons in place for the bad showings such as good opposing QBs and young starters at key positions. Maybe I overestimated the talent. I won't rule that out.

I believe that's part of his plan...multiple schemes that will take tiime to iron out, but when they do the defense will be able to morph whichever way he wants. I don't believe he thought the pass rush would be so slow developing, but he must have looked at the schedule and noticed the QBs the defense would face early in the year. So, go with a simple single plan and be one dimensional, or use many plans and work toward solvency?

They may be playing at a poor level but the speed of the defense has increased week by week. Guys are less hesitant. My hope is that they are nearing the point of playing more instinctively in all the schemes.

Good point about the bolded. He may have designed this defense with the premise that he'd have two good pass rushers coming off the edge which would allow for zone coverage to be more effective. When Aldon went Aldon, there was no time to overhaul what they've been implementing since camp. At this point, it might be too late to change much. Just hope the players adapt and execute what he wants.

That blow was as big as the late Anthony Davis retirement and Daniel Kilgore second surgery. Just heartbreaking. That said, it does appear (when game plans aren't thrown out the window after the first quarter), that Tomsula/Geep/Logan/Baalke have done what they could to work around a terrible OL during a major scheme change while also adjusting to reinstall CK's psyche again.

My expectations are the same for Mangini. Yes, we have a hole on defense...it's a consistent 2nd pass rusher, although both Brooks + Lynch together can at times, be legit. But what we've learned over the years, is that while Aldon has been in and out of the lineup, there are ways around not having a dominant and consistent pass rush.

And if Mangini is not working around that now to win and instead, taking the perceived lumps now for future gain, he's throwing the season away. And for his scheme, I don't think he has the right personnel for in anyways right now. If Mangini wants to run this scheme, he's going to need a personnel overhaul IMHO.

So while I am very sympathetic toward that glaring hole, I also still have to hold him accountable to the TEAM to adjust and do what's best for it in the interim until he has all the personnel he needs to run it and has the time to install it.

Originally posted by NCommand:
That blow was as big as the late Anthony Davis retirement and Daniel Kilgore second surgery. Just heartbreaking. That said, it does appear (when game plans aren't thrown out the window after the first quarter), that Tomsula/Geep/Logan/Baalke have done what they could to work around a terrible OL during a major scheme change while also adjusting to reinstall CK's psyche again.

My expectations are the same for Mangini. Yes, we have a hole on defense...it's a consistent 2nd pass rusher, although both Brooks + Lynch together can at times, be legit. But what we've learned over the years, is that while Aldon has been in and out of the lineup, there are ways around not having a dominant and consistent pass rush.

And if Mangini is not working around that now to win and instead, taking the perceived lumps now for future gain, he's throwing the season away. And for his scheme, I don't think he has the right personnel for in anyways right now. If Mangini wants to run this scheme, he's going to need a personnel overhaul IMHO.

So while I am very sympathetic toward that glaring hole, I also still have to hold him accountable to the TEAM to adjust and do what's best for it in the interim until he has all the personnel he needs to run it and has the time to install it.

He may be trying to do both. With a new scheme it would be easy to play one dimensional but good QBs would tear it apart. They seem to be trying to fit the scheme to the offense...with varying success.

I was amazed that Rodgers didn't tear them apart more and then Eli barely pulled the game out. So I see improvement but they still look muddled. Hopefully, when the QBs are less able the defense will look a lot better.

It pretty much goes without saying that our best current pass-rushing set is Brooks - Carradine/Dial - Armstead - Lynch. We badly need to address the need for a top pass-rusher.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
That blow was as big as the late Anthony Davis retirement and Daniel Kilgore second surgery. Just heartbreaking. That said, it does appear (when game plans aren't thrown out the window after the first quarter), that Tomsula/Geep/Logan/Baalke have done what they could to work around a terrible OL during a major scheme change while also adjusting to reinstall CK's psyche again.

My expectations are the same for Mangini. Yes, we have a hole on defense...it's a consistent 2nd pass rusher, although both Brooks + Lynch together can at times, be legit. But what we've learned over the years, is that while Aldon has been in and out of the lineup, there are ways around not having a dominant and consistent pass rush.

And if Mangini is not working around that now to win and instead, taking the perceived lumps now for future gain, he's throwing the season away. And for his scheme, I don't think he has the right personnel for in anyways right now. If Mangini wants to run this scheme, he's going to need a personnel overhaul IMHO.

So while I am very sympathetic toward that glaring hole, I also still have to hold him accountable to the TEAM to adjust and do what's best for it in the interim until he has all the personnel he needs to run it and has the time to install it.

He may be trying to do both. With a new scheme it would be easy to play one dimensional but good QBs would tear it apart. They seem to be trying to fit the scheme to the offense...with varying success.

I was amazed that Rodgers didn't tear them apart more and then Eli barely pulled the game out. So I see improvement but they still look muddled. Hopefully, when the QBs are less able the defense will look a lot better.

You may be very very right and I'm certainly not dismissing it. Perhaps it's a case of unfairly comparing the new g/f to the old one (who left you).

But I am a system's guy to...Bill Walsh designed systems that could plug-n-play forcing us to debate even today, to question whether it was the system or was it the players who made the system?

Fangio seemed to have a system and with Baalke's eye for DB's, together, they could plug anyone into that system and it would remain a top 5 defense. Period. Hell, last year we lead the league in INT's. I still can't even fathom that given all the starters down. So to me, clearly, Fangio has a system that works...it's been proven here no matter what personnel we plug in. Sure, I too, wanted some modifications to it as well but to drop to 31st so quickly? That's a major fail no matter how you rule it.

I agree with you in that I think you can do both. IMHO, he should have kept it very simple (and the same as last year) and slowly added more and more to it, adjusting as he learns what works and what doesn't with current personnel. Then after another off season of getting more of the personnel to run it better, build more on top of it...until it's fully installed with proper personnel.

What we're seeing right now is the polar opposite of that IMHO.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
It pretty much goes without saying that our best current pass-rushing set is Brooks - Carradine/Dial - Armstead - Lynch. We badly need to address the need for a top pass-rusher.

Both Williams and Purcell can one gap as well and penetrate.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
It pretty much goes without saying that our best current pass-rushing set is Brooks - Carradine/Dial - Armstead - Lynch. We badly need to address the need for a top pass-rusher.

If we keep losing we can look forward to either Nkemdiche or Bosa.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by thl408:
My issue is that I don't like the scheme that I am seeing. Some are stating it's complex and will take time to learn. I don't see it as far as the coverages, which is the main area being exposed. It looks elementary and easy to figure out as multiple veteran QBs have done. I don't see anything complex about Tampa2, Cover3, Fire Zone blitz, and Cover 2 Man. The term 'complex' can have more than one meaning. It can mean what they do is complex and tough to teach - this is Fangio. Or it can mean that there's just a large playbook and there's a lot to remember, which is what I think of Mangini's defense. Defensive players that have to think so much can't react as quickly.

Fangio came with different coverages, but they were almost always pattern matching. This allowed the players to be comfortable knowing that what they did in the previous play, is what they'll be doing again on the next play, just from a various look. Mangini is all over the place. Blitz LBs, blitz DBs, rush 3, man, zone, a variety of different fronts, and a bunch of post snap rotations, all designed to confuse the offense, but also confuses the defense. It's complicated in terms of sheer volume of what they have to know. A lame analogy is that Fangio is like learning Calculus - a very advanced and difficult branch of math. Whereas Mangini is like learning basic arithmetic, basic physics, basic chemistry, common world history, etc.

I get the loss in talent, but the defense is playing at a very poor level. Not just middle of the road, but one of the worst in the league. There are some reasons in place for the bad showings such as good opposing QBs and young starters at key positions. Maybe I overestimated the talent. I won't rule that out.

I believe that's part of his plan...multiple schemes that will take tiime to iron out, but when they do the defense will be able to morph whichever way he wants. I don't believe he thought the pass rush would be so slow developing, but he must have looked at the schedule and noticed the QBs the defense would face early in the year. So, go with a simple single plan and be one dimensional, or use many plans and work toward solvency?

They may be playing at a poor level but the speed of the defense has increased week by week. Guys are less hesitant. My hope is that they are nearing the point of playing more instinctively in all the schemes.

Good point about the bolded. He may have designed this defense with the premise that he'd have two good pass rushers coming off the edge which would allow for zone coverage to be more effective. When Aldon went Aldon, there was no time to overhaul what they've been implementing since camp. At this point, it might be too late to change much. Just hope the players adapt and execute what he wants.

Good points thl408. I know I overestimated the talent level. And I think it's too late to make wholesale changes to the defense, but Mangini can/should make changes to the volume of info he's asking his players to digest and change what he's asking them to execute post snap. There's no panacea defensive play, he's gonna have to pick his poison given the situation, down-&-distance, etc. But I don't suppose Mangini is gonna make that many changes. I get the feeling his ego is gonna force-feed his philosophy onto the D. Them everyone can blame "player execution" as the main culprit.

But as a coach myself I can tell you that even if I have a brilliant scheme, but the given players have trouble executing it, I have a duty as a coach to apply a scheme they can execute, no matter how the needed change(s) differ from my own philosophy. So for me, in this case, if Mangini cannot come up with a scheme that fits the personnel then he is the one at fault ultimately. IMHO.

Originally posted by SoCold:

Originally posted by philosoraptor:

Originally posted by SoCold:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Why did Tomsula and Mangini feel the need to change the defensive scheme and philosophy so greatly, the defensive scheme and philosophy they had worked.

I don't get the appeal of Mangini, he didn't get results as the TE coach and his one year as DC in New England was BY FAR their worst defensive year in all the years Belichick has been there.

Defensive coaches have their own styles, just like offensive coaches, they are going to run what they know, and feel comfortable with. Mangini is trying to turn us into the Patriots.

That's the thing, the Pats defense hasn't been the same since they lost the presence of Harrison and Brueschi. They have been standing on the shoulders of their offense for years now.

Since 2000 only twice has NE not been in the top 15 teams for points allowed.

Once was in 2005 when guess who was the DC.

2004 ranked 2nd
2005 ranked 17th
2006 ranked 2nd

lol

http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2015/01/26/eric-mangini-and-the-2005-patriots-defense-what-happened/

Not that I like exactly what his defense is doing(putting it mildly). But the 2005 patriots had some injury problems on defense, this contributed to their low ranking played 45 players actually.

Richard Seymour was New Englands only defensive pro bowler in 2006

sounds like a lot of excuses to me

And if you look at Yards allowed:
2004 ranked 9th
2005 ranked 26th
2006 ranked 6th

I know they had injuries but that is a huge dropoff and they rebounded as soon as he was gone. He didn't seem to add any value as DC in New England.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
But as a coach myself I can tell you that even if I have a brilliant scheme, but the given players have trouble executing it, I have a duty as a coach to apply a scheme they can execute, no matter how the needed change(s) differ from my own philosophy. So for me, in this case, if Mangini cannot come up with a scheme that fits the personnel then he is the one at fault ultimately. IMHO.

I'm a coach as well. 100% agree with the bold.

How many of you Xs and Os guys feel our defensive line and LB personnel now better suites a 4-3? We just don't have the LB depth and lack of DL talent for me to see any reason to stick with a 3-4. Stop this 2-gap s**t and let our DL blow up the gaps.

Originally posted by Joecool:
How many of you Xs and Os guys feel our defensive line and LB personnel now better suites a 4-3? We just don't have the LB depth and lack of DL talent for me to see any reason to stick with a 3-4. Stop this 2-gap s**t and let our DL blow up the gaps.

Not an Xs and Os guy but I've always preferred the 4/3 because it's easier to find players that fit that scheme. J Smith was one of the great DL who could play either and take away a side, but not many others can. But our LBs don't seem to me to be 4/3 type guys. Maybe Harold...and Bowman could probably fit anywhere, but Lynch and Brooks seem too big and bulky to be LBs in the 4/3...maybe move them to DE?